Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[exchemist]

Can you suggest a better alternative?

Mantra:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

You are, not for the first time, arguing like a creationist. Science does not require that we have immediate explanations for everything. There is no requirement to seize on any old explanation , however crap, just for the sake of having one. A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

So the question, "Can you suggest a better alternative?" is a thoroughly stupid and inappropriate one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you suggest a better alternative?

Yes. Start a blog.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are, not for the first time, arguing like a creationist. Science does not require that we have immediate explanations for everything. There is no requirement to seize on any old explanation , however crap, just for the sake of having one. A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

This puts in words what I've been thinking.
It describes how "trying too hard" can be a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I laud your enthusiasm. It just seems to be a uni-directional conversation. You've said all there is to say and are repeating yourself.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
Can you suggest a better alternative?

Yes. Start a blog

A blog? What is a blog? Is this sub-forum not the place to discuss "alternative theories"?

exchemist said: ↑
You are, not for the first time, arguing like a creationist. Science does not require that we have immediate explanations for everything. There is no requirement to seize on any old explanation , however crap, just for the sake of having one. A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

Why do you harp on this religious bit, that's just avoiding the question. Admit it, you have no Main theory, let alone an alternative theory.

This puts in words what I've been thinking. It describes how "trying too hard" can be a bad thing.

I could use the same argument to your non-responsiveness. You might as well say "God did it, end of story"
.
I am not advocating for any kind of untestable Intelligent Design. AFAIK, ORCH OR and tangently related hypotheses are testable. They are active physical science, not some "spiritual" woo.

Don't get me wrong, I laud your enthusiasm. It just seems to be a uni-directional conversation. You've said all there is to say and are repeating yourself.

I try to frame my understanding in different ways and from different perspectives. That is not repeating, that is variations on a theme.
Can you suggest a better alternative?

If not, then you are admitting there is a lack of knowledge and are merely avoiding the question. I have staked out a tentative position and am trying to find corroborating evidence.

But if there is convincing evidence to the contrary I'll gladly post it. I do not turn a deaf ear to "persuasive evidence".
So far there is none that reveals a fatal error in ORCH OR or any of the possible variations., that I can see.

I am productive in that respect, and seemingly with very little "debunking" evidence in return. Should I say "Oh, ok, you don't like the theory, so it is bunko and every scientist who is engaged in this research is a charlatan.

Don't you see how you have forced this one sided discussion. You're not offering anything to replace the various versions such as I have produced in the latest series of the TSC 2019 conference in Interlaken. You're not even listening to the originators of the hypothesis. How can you respond if you don't wish to familiarize yourself with the science.

There is only "No" and "the theory you are investigating has been debunked" . Really, where are the papers that definitively render any of those "alternative theories" wrong and not worthy of discussion? Where are the "fatal flaws" that cannot be addressed wihin the larger context.

What you take for religious zealotry, I consider as due dilligence in research on available information ( including contrary viewpoints). I am trying to be fair and balanced, but there is so little debunking information available. Should I restrict my research, because there is little evidence to the contrary? That's not how it works in my book.

 

[Write4U]

A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

Show me this patient work toward another hypothesis, informed by observation and experiment. Please......

IMO, I have already provided that other research in the series of lectures at the TSC 2019 conference. But you won't look, why not? You are positing other hypotheses but I have already provided several other variations and approaches to possible paths to consciousness.

You are accusing me of negligence without foundation. But fact is, I am doing due dilligence.!

 

[Write4U]

exchemist said: ↑
A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

I find that observation ironic as you condemn ORCH OR for the decades of patient working towards a complete theory.

In one of the interviews, the interviewer stipulates that ORCH OR is really the only complete theory of consciousness, perhaps with a few warts, but it offers a completed rationale. Apparently it is the only such developed theory in science, right or wrong.

Why do you not grant ORCH OR the same patient time as you are willing to grant to other (more convential) theories?
AFAIK, there is no completed theory, apart from ORCH OR.
It took some twenty years, but you can't hold that against it. Blaming patient research is not a valid critique, IMO.

But there are critical reviews of ORCH OR . Below is link to several critical downloadable .pdf papers.

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory

Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

Does consciousness belong in the realm of natural sciences? This question has been on the minds of many scientists whose opinions diverge due to the subjective nature of consciousness. The existence of this phenomenon cannot be denied as we all experience it as sentient humans. Hameroff and Penrose over the past two decades generated a large body of literature [1] and generated a theory known as “Orch OR” (orchestrated objective reduction). It is an attempt to place consciousness within the empirical sciences as a fundamental concept in science. This is in contrast to emergent phenomenon approaches or spiritualistic/dualistic concepts.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...6AB98CD60A728E35AD0062C83DD34F9C23CB6AB99F28D

None of the initial objections point to "fatal flaws". The science on which the objections are founded, themselves are flawed.
Any conclusion of ORCH OR having been debunked is premature, IMO.

 

[Bells]

None of the initial objections point to "fatal flaws". The science on which the objections are founded, themselves are flawed.
Any conclusion of ORCH OR having been debunked is premature, IMO.

You have completely ignored the studies that have debunked it and which have been linked numerous times in this thread and you have ignored it each time.

 

[exchemist]

But if there is convincing evidence to the contrary I'll gladly post it. I do not turn a deaf ear to "persuasive evidence".
So far there is none that reveals a fatal error in ORCH OR or any of the possible variations., that I can see.

......[snip]......

There is only "No" and "the theory you are investigating has been debunked" . Really, where are the papers that definitively render any of those "alternative theories" wrong and not worthy of discussion? Where are the "fatal flaws" that cannot be addressed wihin the larger context.

Itemised in some detail in posts 5 and 398 of this thread and to which you have yet to react.

So you are a liar. You DO turn the deafest of deaf ears to persuasive evidence that contradicts your favoured hypothesis. If you think this evidence is not "fatal" (an extra criterion you have just invented, to make it easier for you to ignore the evidence that exists), you need to address it and explain why that is what you conclude. But you have not.

I do not know if you are a religious zealot, mentally ill or just very, very, stupid. But it must be one of the three - or possibly a linear combination of several of them.

 

[billvon]

But fact is, I am doing due dilligence.!

Ignoring research that does not support your beliefs is really not due diligence. It is the opposite.

 

[Write4U]

Ignoring research that does not support your beliefs is really not due diligence. It is the opposite.

So far I am concentrating on getting as much information in support of ORCH OR. That is due dilligence. I rely on any critiques to present the counter arguments. Let the debunkers do due dilligence in presenting actual expressed arguments, not some vague reference to wiki pages.

I am not ignoring research that does not support ORCH OR. It's just that the falsifications themselves are not founded on hard science, but are themselves based only on current proposed models. It is the argument against ORCH OR that may itself be subject to falsification. There is no accepted theory anywhere. There is only dedicated experiments on current knowledge. But that knowledge is far from complete and is itself subject to review in context of any overall hypothesis.

As far as any debunking, it is my understanding that with minor adjustments in parameters most of the apparent conflicts have been or can be resolved.

According to Hameroff all but one objection has been successfully resolved and they are working on resolution.

It is negligent to not show any objections, but it is also negligent to ignore the counterarguments which resolve the original objection. Why should the debunkers know more than the original authors ? No one has a functional model. Its all speculative.

There is no theory that officially debunks the entire ORCH OR hypothesis. Bits and pieces may be subject to refinement, but to generally declare that ORCH OR has been debunked is not fair and balanced. No one can yet say that ORCH OR is woo. That's just prejudicial. And any argument that progress is slow, what do you expect when addressing a subject as esoteric as "consciousness". You want resolve that in a few words by scientists who do not have any greater understanding that the original authors.

Better to say that at this time the theory has need for further refinement and IMO, that would be a more neutral position than joining the ferocious wolf pack decending on a new idea and trying to tear it apart instead of considering the possibility of a new approach.

What bother me is that I am supposed to do the research on any argument which purports to debunk OTCH OR, instead of copy and paste a specific argument, rather than a link to wiki and a bunch of reference numbers which may or may not be pertinent.

When I quote a proposal I always accompany it with quoted passages plua the links where this specific argument may be found. By not providing it, it leaves all responsibility for critiques on me, while I am still gathering information of supporting arguments.

You are asking me to debunk my own affinity for the proposed hypothesis. If you want to debunk ORCH OR , do provide some quotes instead of shoving wiki in front of me tell me to find arguments which debumk my own. That's not how it works.

If you want to debunk anything, don't just make a reference to a reference of a reference. A "no" and a number on a wiki page is not an argument. It a cheap way out. Give me a cogent and pertinent quote of any falsification and I'll appreciate it.

Burt asking me to do all the work is not fair, IMO. I've got enough to do in trying to research and absorb the total scope and knowledge of ORCH OR and/or any other possible application of the inherent abilities of Microtubules as a fundamental aspect of "consciousness'.

My interest lies primarily microtubules, not necessarily in ORCH OR as the only possible mechanism for producing consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

Itemised in some detail in posts 5 and 398 of this thread and to which you have yet to react.

I do not consider a reference number to a page or a paragraph as constituting "some detail".
If you are posting detail, quote the detail and provide the reference as confirmation. That's what I do, but if no one reads what I actually quote and link for confirmation, it is a one sided effort on my part.

If you think this evidence is not "fatal" (an extra criterion you have just invented, to make it easier for you to ignore the evidence that exists), you need to address it and explain why that is what you conclude. But you have not.

You are the one declaring ORCH OR is fatally flawed and has been debunked. Apparently you are in posession of "fatal arguments" falsifying both ORCH OR or the possibility that microtubules may be the fundamental instrument of generating consciousness. Which you have not provided.

Do provide some quotes that I and others can read before you send me running around on a wild goose chase through the Wiki encyclopedia, thank you.

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[20] Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimersubunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart and that may contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm. Hameroff proposed that these electrons are close enough to become entangled.[21] Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[22] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was experimentally discredited.[23]

I posted the counter argument from Hameroff, which shows the above is not necessarily true.

Ok, let me just follow some of the links presented in that "some detailed" posit.

Here are the references you are citing.
(20), (21), (22) The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1]

is a group of hypotheses which proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis for an explanation of consciousness.

Assertions that consciousness is somehow quantum-mechanical can overlap with quantum mysticism, a pseudoscientific movement that involves assigning supernatural characteristics to various quantum phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#cite_note-Penrose-Hameroff2011-22

This qualifies as "debunking"???

(23) Editorial: A Look at the Future and an Open Call for Scientific Community

What we call science is the systematization of information obtained from nature. Nature has had its own laws from the beginning. Some of these laws are easy to express, while others stretch our understanding and even our sense of logic. Our efforts to understand nature and its workings, that is our production of scientific knowledge, will never end. We may never truly understand the workings of nature, or get close to the real truth. Therefore, it is ridiculous to behave as if we knew all of the workings of nature and to say this is not scientific, it is in conflict with the (known) laws of science. The clearest example of this is when we see the workings of quantum physics in biological structures. When nature is working, it does not know the laws of our science and doesn't even take notice of them. Nature even sometimes winks at us with anomalies. We learn from nature but we cannot impose on nature the laws we have learned from it.

https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/123

What am I supposed to do with any of this? You call this "falsification"? Do I pursue every numbered link in that post with "some detail", only to be rewarded with some philosophical generalities?

I think not.......

p.s. the expressed doubts about our scientific general knowledge works both ways.
It needs to be considered when making propositions, and it must just as much be considered when attempting to debunk a hypothesis in toto.

If you want to debunk ORCH OR or the possibility that microtubules are causal to consciousness, you'll have to come up with some more detail.

The above references provided by you do not qualify as falsification of anything. It's philosophy, not science.

 

[Write4U]

I followed another link and ended up here;
How to spot quantum quackery, Sept. 20, 2010, 4:32 PM PDT
By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

Some argue that the same quantum processes seen in the universe around us have an effect on consciousness as well, but physicist Lawrence Krauss says that's highly debatable.

Krauss has dealt with factual and fictional weirdness for decades — as the author of "The Physics of Star Trek," as the head of Arizona State University's Origins Project, and as the author of a "Quantum Man," a soon-to-be-published biography of pioneering physicist Richard Feynman.

Q: Some scientists, such as Sir Roger Penrose, have talked about neurons as quantum systems. And a lot of people talk about quantum consciousness ... that even if the everyday world we see is not a system that can be changed, our consciousness about the world can be changed.

A: Well, Roger Penrose has given lots of new-age crackpots ammunition by suggesting that at some fundamental scale, quantum mechanics might be relevant for consciousness. When you hear the term "quantum consciousness," you should be suspicious.

The reason you should be suspicious is because we don't even understand classical consciousness. If we don't understand classical consciousness, how can we understand quantum consciousness? Many people are dubious that Penrose's suggestions are reasonable, because the brain is not an isolated quantum-mechanical system. To some extent it could be, because memories and thoughts are stored at the molecular level, and at a molecular level quantum mechanics is significant. Quantum mechanics may play a role at some level in the way the brain works ... just as it may play a role in photosynthesis.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/how-spot-quantum-quackery-6c10403763

This is "debunking"? Where?

It is you who is throwing the kitchen sink at me, whereas I bring detailed explanations of the hypothesis, including illustrations and scientific narratives.

Nothing you have shown does in any way "debunk" anything except by inference and inuendo.

Show me scientifc narrative that deals a "fatal blow" to either or both hypotheses.
If you cannot do that, you cannot claim that anything has been debunked in toto.

 

[Write4U]

You are, not for the first time, arguing like a creationist. Science does not require that we have immediate explanations for everything. There is no requirement to seize on any old explanation , however crap, just for the sake of having one. A falsified hypothesis - and that is what Orch-OR is - is set aside and we work patiently towards another, always informed by observation and experiment.

So the question, "Can you suggest a better alternative?" is a thoroughly stupid and inappropriate one.

The hypothesis has not been falsified. There were some objections to details in the theory. That does not falsify the entire theory, but only opens that that specific detail to further research and possible modification.

Moreover, the objections were individually countered and satisfied .

Asking for an alternative theory is appropriate, because your lame attempt to show debunking is hopelessly inadequate for any persuasive argument. Your argument is lacking in scientific substance. Try to post some actual results of the supposed science which exposes the "crap" in either or both propositions.

OTOH, I try to provide actual supporting evidence and narratives, complete with illustrations from a range of related perspectives. Is that crap? Prove it.!

You keep insisting that there are only two nutcase scientists trying to peddle woo.
I beg to differ. This is an active area of research by dozens of scientists both for and against, with an interested following of tens of thousands scientists and lay persons.

This is far from settled. Your own observations do not in any way debunk anything at all, except trying to make me out to be some idiot. Ad hominem is against the rules.

And if you want to call me an idiot or person of low intelligence, prove it or risk censure.

You are a an ex-chemist? Retired? Why? Got caught in medical malpractice perhaps? You're a quack with a demonstrated lack of credible knowledgeable information. You're arguing from hearsay, not from fact!

If you keep slinging shit at me like a zoo gorilla, don't be surprised if and when I decide to return the "favor".
Trust me, you don't want me on your case...........

 

[DaveC426913]

Trust me, you don't want me on your case...........

Yes. Beware Exchemist.
I faced that wrath and ignored it at my peril. Now he's unfriended and blocked me on MyLittleBronies.com

 

[billvon]

Yes. Beware Exchemist.
I faced that wrath and ignored it at my peril. Now he's unfriended and blocked me on MyLittleBronies.com

O noes! How are you dealing with the trauma?

 

[Write4U]

You have completely ignored the studies that have debunked it and which have been linked numerous times in this thread and you have ignored it each time.

That is not true. I have provided several quotes and references to opposing views. That is not "completely ignoring" anything. Why is it that you assume the right to argue from "authority" and accuse me of complete and utter ignorance and unwillingness to acknowledge opposing views?

My aim is to provide a fair and balanced view. I hope you don't mind if I start with the "original hypothesis" as viewed and presented from several different perspectives, before I can even begin to research the opposing arguments and the responses from the authors of the theory..

How do you know I am repeating myself on everything if you refuse to read anything I post?

What studies.? Do I see any quoted references from 'knowledgeable scientists" showing the how and why their position is stronger than the proposed theory?

You are taking a few details in question and condemn an entire hypothesis that has taken years to develop in one fell swoop.

"The brain is too wet", therefore microtubules are out, end of story! Really??.......really.....??????

That's like saying, "Quantum Uncertainty debunks the concept of Determinism", end of story! ?

I consider this the greatest scientific quest for knowledge ever undertaken in History.

What is "consciousness" is a fundamentally profound question, much deeper than the question of abiogenesis......
We understand the chemical selection processes, which allowed for eventual chemical pattern organization which gave birth to sensory Awareness..

"Conscious understanding" is always preceded by "knowledge" originating from "sensory awareness" in biological systems.

It's a requirement of a mathematically dynamical self-referential system.

 

[Write4U]

Yes. Beware Exchemist.
I faced that wrath and ignored it at my peril. Now he's unfriended and blocked me on MyLittleBronies.com

You are a LIAR. I do not frequent MyLittleBronies.com . Apparently you do. You seem very familiar with their rules.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE! Stop telling lies!. It's very Trumpian of you.....

 

[Write4U]

O noes! How are you dealing with the trauma?

We may find out soon enough.....

 

[Bells]

The hypothesis has not been falsified. There were some objections to details in the theory. That does not falsify the entire theory, but only opens that that specific detail to further research and possible modification.

Moreover, the objections were individually countered and satisfied .

Asking for an alternative theory is appropriate, because your lame attempt to show debunking is hopelessly inadequate for any persuasive argument. Your argument is lacking in scientific substance. Try to post some actual results of the supposed science which exposes the "crap" in either or both propositions.

OTOH, I try to provide actual supporting evidence and narratives, complete with illustrations from a range of related perspectives. Is that crap? Prove it.!

You keep insisting that there are only two nutcase scientists trying to peddle woo.
I beg to differ. This is an active area of research by dozens of scientists both for and against, with an interested following of tens of thousands scientists and lay persons.

You can beg to differ all you want.

Unfortunately, scientific tests and studies on their theory has proven that it is impossible and you were provided with many, many links, which you basically ignored and clearly did not read, while demanding more and more links and more proof, and you are still pushing the same argument that has already been debunked.

This is where zealotry enters the fray. Either that or you are exceptionally gullible.

I mean, we can keep linking you studies, and you will keep ignoring them while making the same ridiculously wrong arguments and claims.

What is even funnier is that you claim to offer a balanced view, but that balance is from Hameroff.

There's a reason why when a police officer commits a crime, for example, the police officers working in the same station as he is should not investigate their colleague.

Something something about bias goes here.

This is far from settled. Your own observations do not in any way debunk anything at all, except trying to make me out to be some idiot. Ad hominem is against the rules.

When something is deemed biologically impossible in regards to Hameroff and Penrose's "theory", then it's pretty much a safe bet to say it has been debunked and is settled.

Orch OR also required gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[42] yet Binmöller et. al. proved in 1992 that these don't exist in the adult brain.​

I guess there is a reason for Hameroff turning to religious and mysticism to peddle his wares. And there is a reason for scientists who are studying consciousness running in the opposite direction. Not because he is right.

And if you want to call me an idiot or person of low intelligence, prove it or risk censure.

I do not think you are dumb.

But I do think you are gullible and a zealot.

I think you have lost any objectivity and you are so obsessed and you want to believe so much, that you are willing to make yourself look like an obsessed zealot.

And you do not get to threaten "censure" when your next sentence is:

You are a an ex-chemist? Retired? Why? Got caught in medical malpractice perhaps? You're a quack with a demonstrated lack of credible knowledgeable information. You're arguing from hearsay, not from fact!

If you keep slinging shit at me like a zoo gorilla, don't be surprised if and when I decide to return the "favor".
Trust me, you don't want me on your case...........

Firstly, slander and libel is a big no no.

Secondly, he has provided you with various scientific links that debunk your obsession, he is arguing from a point of scientific fact. You are now operating from a standpoint of empty and bizarre threats and pure desperation and frankly, foolishness.

Thirdly, we can easily make an argument that you are now resorting to threatening behaviour. So I would suggest you get a grip on yourself and stop sounding like a blithering zealot and acolyte.

And finally, you are the absolute last person to be accusing anyone of being a quack or having a "demonstrated lack of credible knowledgeable information" when you have openly and repeatedly disregarded scientific studies because you are too busy carrying water for a dude and theory that is biologically impossible.